ER Nurse: Medicare for All Wins

Seven thousand five hundred dollars. That is the new deductible for Jaime Bardenhagen, a former nurse in rural Leelanau County, Michigan. Her monthly health insurance premiums jumped from $700 to $1,300 this year after enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies expired. The financial strain is forcing her and her husband to delay medical tests her doctor has requested.

Bardenhagen is one of many voters who helped elect progressive Democrats in the 2026 midterms. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed won a Senate seat after making Medicare for All a central part of his campaign. The policy would replace most or all private insurance with a government program that guarantees coverage for all Americans. Similar wins occurred for candidates in Texas, Iowa, and Maine.

Kim Bogan, an emergency room nurse at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, spent the past year campaigning for El-Sayed between 12-hour shifts. She says her patients are sicker and poorer than in the past. Some cannot afford prescriptions filled in the ER, and she worries that caring for five or six people at once prevents her from saving lives. Bogan believes the current system must be torn down to be fixed.

However, political experts caution that winning elections does not guarantee legislative success. Jonathan Oberlander, a healthcare reform professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, notes that voters primarily sought relief from inflation, corruption, and the Iran war. They did not necessarily vote for the government to take over health insurance. The most vocal champions of Medicare for All won by smaller margins than more moderate Democrats.

Moderate Democrats who hold seats in states like Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina may view the policy as a risk. Oberlander argues that these seats were difficult to win, so their holders may resist passing Medicare for All in red-leaning areas. He states that a Democratic majority does not equate to a majority for universal healthcare.

Michael Cannon, a healthcare economist at the Cato Institute, opposes the proposal. He argues that previous plans required millions of people to give up existing coverage, which fueled strong industry opposition. Cannon predicts that if the policy had the price levels envisioned by Bernie Sanders and El-Sayed, the healthcare industry would dismantle it. He believes that giving the federal government greater control would leave patients in more vulnerable positions due to unsustainable government spending.

A recent KFF poll shows that support for Medicare for All is higher than in nearly a decade, but it drops when voters hear arguments against it. Common counterpoints include higher taxes and delays in treatment. Bardenhagen admits she feels guilty about relying on government benefits, a concept she did not believe in while growing up on a farm. Yet she supports the policy because insurance companies, not doctors, currently determine which treatments patients receive.

Sara Collins, a senior scholar at the Commonwealth Fund, expects both parties to face pressure to address the affordability crisis. This could lead to smaller bipartisan deals, such as reinstating expired ACA subsidies or curbing prior authorizations. Patricia Votava, a political strategist in South Carolina, calls these measures the lowest-hanging fruit.

The pressure will likely increase as ACA premiums rise by double digits next year and employers pass on higher costs to workers. Massive cuts to Medicaid are projected to leave 7.5 million more people uninsured by 2034. Oberlander says the window for reform is open and Democrats should not wait for gradual change.

El-Sayed describes his current plan as a guaranteed baseline government health insurance. He says that if voters like their employer or union insurance, they can keep it. Bardenhagen wants Democrats to act now. She says, "Do something."